From patchwork Wed Jun 8 16:25:37 2016 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Will Deacon X-Patchwork-Id: 69672 Delivered-To: patch@linaro.org Received: by 10.140.106.246 with SMTP id e109csp2584806qgf; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:27:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.153.209 with SMTP id vi17mr6649506pab.0.1465403234875; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:27:14 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org. [2001:1868:205::9]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m66si2048447pfa.107.2016.06.08.09.27.14 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:27:14 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-arm-kernel-bounces+patch=linaro.org@lists.infradead.org designates 2001:1868:205::9 as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1868:205::9; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-arm-kernel-bounces+patch=linaro.org@lists.infradead.org designates 2001:1868:205::9 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+patch=linaro.org@lists.infradead.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1bAgIy-00014I-4i; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 16:26:08 +0000 Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1bAgIv-0000xV-Dw for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 16:26:06 +0000 Received: from edgewater-inn.cambridge.arm.com (edgewater-inn.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.203.121]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id u58GPLWr006157; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:25:21 +0100 (BST) Received: by edgewater-inn.cambridge.arm.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3970A1AE3165; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:25:43 +0100 (BST) From: Will Deacon To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64: spinlock: order spin_{is_locked, unlock_wait} against local locks Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:25:37 +0100 Message-Id: <1465403139-21054-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.1.4 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20160608_092605_825406_C19C2002 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 13.82 ) X-Spam-Score: -8.3 (--------) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.4.0 on bombadil.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (-8.3 points) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -5.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, high trust [217.140.96.50 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -1.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: peterz@infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, Will Deacon MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+patch=linaro.org@lists.infradead.org spin_is_locked has grown two very different use-cases: (1) [The sane case] API functions may require a certain lock to be held by the caller and can therefore use spin_is_locked as part of an assert statement in order to verify that the lock is indeed held. For example, usage of assert_spin_locked. (2) [The insane case] There are two locks, where a CPU takes one of the locks and then checks whether or not the other one is held before accessing some shared state. For example, the "optimized locking" in ipc/sem.c. In the latter case, the sequence looks like: spin_lock(&sem->lock); if (!spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock)) /* Access shared state */ and requires that the spin_is_locked check is ordered after taking the sem->lock. Unfortunately, since our spinlocks are implemented using a LDAXR/STXR sequence, the read of &sma->sem_perm.lock can be speculated before the STXR and consequently return a stale value. Whilst this hasn't been seen to cause issues in practice, PowerPC fixed the same issue in 51d7d5205d33 ("powerpc: Add smp_mb() to arch_spin_is_locked()") and, although we did something similar for spin_unlock_wait in d86b8da04dfa ("arm64: spinlock: serialise spin_unlock_wait against concurrent lockers") that doesn't actually take care of ordering against local acquisition of a different lock. This patch adds an smp_mb() to the start of our arch_spin_is_locked and arch_spin_unlock_wait routines to ensure that the lock value is always loaded after any other locks have been taken by the current CPU. Reported-by: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Will Deacon --- arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) -- 2.1.4 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel Acked-by: Mark Rutland diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h index fc9682bfe002..aac64d55cb22 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h @@ -31,6 +31,12 @@ static inline void arch_spin_unlock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lock) unsigned int tmp; arch_spinlock_t lockval; + /* + * Ensure prior spin_lock operations to other locks have completed + * on this CPU before we test whether "lock" is locked. + */ + smp_mb(); + asm volatile( " sevl\n" "1: wfe\n" @@ -148,6 +154,7 @@ static inline int arch_spin_value_unlocked(arch_spinlock_t lock) static inline int arch_spin_is_locked(arch_spinlock_t *lock) { + smp_mb(); /* See arch_spin_unlock_wait */ return !arch_spin_value_unlocked(READ_ONCE(*lock)); }